Stokenchurch, West Wycombe & Lane End RSS Feed


Stokenchurch News written by you

• Your reporter is Rebecca Cain: 01494 755096, rcain@london.newsquest.co.uk

Future gypsy sites named as Stokenchurch, Studley Green and Marsh


LAND at Stokenchurch, Studley Green and Marsh have been backed by council bosses for legal gypsy sites.

Ruling Conservatives will be asked to agree the sites in a bid to stop illegal encampments such as one at Hemley Hill, near Princes Risborough.

The sites are: The Willows, Marsh Lane, Marsh, near Aylesbury; Dry Banks, Oxford Road, Stokenchurch and Five Oaks Farm, Studley Green.

It follows a public consultation by Wycombe District Council on eight sites including the High Wycombe, Tylers Green, Princes Risborough and Stokenchurch areas.

If approved it would mean the council could not oppose a planning application that met its criteria. The Government has demanded all councils allocate sites for gypsies and travellers.

It follows widespread concern about the site from Stokenchurch residents. A public meeting had to turn people away (see link, bottom of story).

The sites (click 'sat' for picture view):


View Gypsy sites in a larger map

Stokenchurch Parish Council chairman Councillor Alan Dunn said: “It gives people cause for concern.

“Are we going to end up with people who leave sites in a horrible mess? The site is entirely inappropriate – it has no facilities.”

Some 198 opposed the Stokenchurch site and 199 opposed it.

A council report (see link, bottom of story) said the Stokenchurch site would be ‘small’ but did not give caravan numbers. It previously said it would be one to five caravans.

It could be expanded to ‘accommodate more than one group/ family’ and said planting would be needed to ‘assimilate’ it into the protected Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Some 153 opposed the Marsh and 108 supported it.

The council report said the Marsh site will have two caravans.

Councillor George Lamb, chairman of Stone with Bishopstone and Hartwell Parish Council, said: “Two caravans might not be that upsetting for everybody.

“The council has a duty to provide homes for travellers so we haven’t any strong feelings at the moment.”

Five Oaks Farm, Studley Green is already used by gypsies and travellers and would be made legal under the plans.

The report says: “The family are understood to only be interested in additional pitches if for members of their family.”

The study into possible sites cost the cash-strapped council £17,000 and bosses have said they could buy land for gypsies and travellers. More sites are being sought, it says.

The sites ruled out are: • Park Mill Farm, Princes Risborough, one to 12 pitches.

• Former BOCM site, near Stoke Mandeville, one to 12 pitches.

• Abbey Barn North, High Wycombe, one to five pitches.

• Storage Site, Oxford Road, Stokenchurch, one to five pitches.

• Ashwells, Tylers Green, one to 12 pitches.

The issue will be put to WDC's cabinet on Monday at 7pm at the council's offices at Queen Victoria Road, High Wycombe. The public are welcome to attend.,


Comments(8)

Malc London says...
12:54pm Tue 2 Mar 10

Can the council allocate some land for me to put my tent on? Seems if free land is going spare then I have as much right as anyone.

BigTommy says...
2:36pm Tue 2 Mar 10

Malc London wrote:
Can the council allocate some land for me to put my tent on? Seems if free land is going spare then I have as much right as anyone.
Don't forget to chuck all your rubish over the fence into the next field.

towncryer says...
5:35pm Tue 2 Mar 10

Great news
Most sensible sites selected
On main routes and in rural areas

First decent decison from this Conservative run council in ages !!!

chris740 says...
9:22pm Tue 2 Mar 10

i hope they are going to pay council tax. now they have a site

michael healy says...
11:43pm Tue 2 Mar 10

I have a question for Wycombe District Council, How much money are they going to pay for the land that the Travellers are on at Hemley Hill, Princes Risborough. Bearing in mind that the Travellers own the land outright. ????????

homer13 says...
6:50am Wed 3 Mar 10

Wht do the council or pblic to be more exact have to provide sites for gypsies? I dont know anyone who would want to live near a site as all previous sites have all been turned into what can only be described as slums that are not fit for rats to live in. I am going to generalise when I say that the new generation of travelers are criminal, tax dodging horrible people. I know that some people wont like this but i have had first hand experience. The cost to have this land and probably employ someone to be there liason person and ongoing costs are far to great to the tax payer. We need to support and improve the life of the current residents before taking on these un-needed challanges. Lets have some common sense please WDC.

5 Villages' Voice says...
7:10pm Fri 5 Mar 10

" Five Oaks Farm, Studley Green is already used by gypsies and travellers and would be made legal under the plans."

This is wrong. There is one family, who are part of a larger family of settled Romany's in the village, there and they have been occupying it illegally for around 18 years. They also own houses on the other side of the road.

There is no record of "travellers" using the site. The only time we have had travellers in the village is when they occupied our community centre football field and play area and left the place in a disgusting mess. The occupant of this illegal site was just as appalled as the rest of us in the way they behaved.


The council has been in dereliction of its duty by not serving an enforcement order for the family to leave and they blame us for not complaining.

Furthermore, the occupant and owner of the land publicly stated he didn't want to sell the land to the council for use by travellers and has not indicated a change of mind to anyone in teh village that I am aware of.

This site was not on the original short list and we were denied equal rights within the consultation and we believe the process was flawed.

Many of us are sympathetic to the occupant but cannot support this thin-end-of-the-wedg
e move to legalise a plot in the Green Belt.

RCL says...
11:06am Sat 6 Mar 10

It would be helpful if you checked the facts more accurately before you printed them.

Re: 5 Oaks Farm for instance.

As mentioned above the "site" at 5 Oaks Farm is NOT occupied by travellers. It is occupied by squatters who have been attempting for years to circumvent council enforecement orders which exist on the land in the hopes of eventually being given planning permission for development of the land. The "settlers" on the land are local residents who are maintain fixed abodes and a business in the area. They are not nomadic travellers or show people.

The settlement is indeed illegal.So is the council's negligent behaviour in fasiling to enact their own enfordcement orders that they have placed eviciting the "Settlers".

So it seems the council and planners, rather than enacting their own enforcing order, would like to make the site legal and expand it in strict violation of all existing planning criteria re: settlement in AONB Green Belt.

As mentioned in the comment above the "settlers" on the land have made public statements in various public meetings that they do NOT want to make their land available as a traveller's site and that the land is NOT available for that purpose.

There is widespread opposition to the illegal settlement of the Green Belt plot yet the council and planners refuse to enact the enforcement order(s) that they have instigated.

Any individual councillors and planners who are going down the path of trying to force this issue through against contradicting their own enforcement orders and planning rules should do so at the peril of losing their positions by reason of negligence and incompetence. They are opening the doors for a dangerous precedence in this instance.


Most popular


Local Information

Enter your postcode, town or place name

House prices »   Schools »   Crime »   Hospitals »

Local Businesses